Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

03 Aug 2015 8:46:11am

Text

PreviousMessage

I disagree with you that the paper you have cited is completely without bias. The original review, published in 2011 and to which the review you cited is a follow up (adding five trials to the original 14), was criticised for having limitations in the published data that significantly undermined the findings of the review (1). Furthermore, of the 14 original trials that were reviewed, only one was publically funded, while the authors of nine trials reported having been sponsored either fully or partially by pharmaceutical companies (1). Als-Nielsen et al (2) demonstrated in 2003 that pharmaceutical industry sponsored trials were more likely than non-industry funded trials to report results that favour the drug over placebo. These findings were confirmed in a recent Cochrane methodology review (3) that stated: "Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources."

As was mentioned in the Catalyst piece, there is a belief out there that science is science no matter who pays for it. Your post has confirmed that.